Bonesetting, Chiropractic, and Cultism

Although the "Palmer Method" represents only the Palmer School
of Chiropractic in technique, the Palmer School, advocating pure and straight
chiropractic, represents, in philosophy and purpose, the International Chiropractic
Association. The National Chiropractic Association, on the other hand, advocating
chiropractic with the use of 'Physiotherapy and other measures, is the direct
antithesis of all that is proposed by Palmer and the I.C.A. Leading the
International Chiropractic Association, the Palmer School is constantly
at odds with the National Association.

The National Association was formed in 1930 by the amalgamation of the
Universal Chiropractors Association and the American Chiropractic Association.
In attempting to raise the educational standards of the chiropractic profession,
the newly-formed N.C.A. approved only those non-profit schools that met
certain minimum standards. Schools below those standards -- the Palmer School
among them -- were not approved. A short time later, B.J. Palmer started
a new organization called the "Chiropractic Health Bureau," which
was later named the International Chiropractic Association. This organization
approved many of those schools that were not approved by the N.C.A. We remember
that it was not until 1950 that the Palmer School adopted the four-year
course of education for all of its students. The National Chiropractic Association
started its four-year education program in 1939.

B.J. Palmer, who owned and operated the Palmer School of Chiropractic,
and who was head of the International Chiropractic Association, recently
stated of the "non-profit" schools approved by the National Association:
"The N.C.A. accredited only those schools which were non-profit. Today
they ARE non-profit, which is one or two main reasons why they are folding
up."

Needless to say, the National Chiropractic Association, in favoring higher
educational standards and more liberal practice, is probably superior to
the International Chiropractic Association. The Palmer group is strong in
numbers and organization, however, and more than once has been influential
in establishing professional standards, in certain states, in the definition
and legislation of chiropractic. It seems, for the most part, that the definition
of the practice of chiropractic in a particular state might well depend
upon the predominate school of thought. In those states, for example, where
there are more I.C.A. chiropractors than N.C.A. chiropractors, the use of
physiotherapy may be stricken from the law by the chiropractor if state
statutes have not already defined the practice to that effect. (About half
of the states licensing chiropractors do not permit them to use physiotherapy.)

In his book Shall Chiropractic Survive?, B.J. Palmer (with these
titles listed after his name: "D.C., Ph.C. -- philosopher, scientist,
artist, builder, hobbyist, musician, author, lecturer, publisher, art connoisseur
-- the bit of a mortal being whom Innate Intelligence developed") said
in favor of limiting the practice of chiropractic to "straight chiropractic":

Most all patients of chiropractors are medical chronic failures, therefore
these patients need what we have if they want to get sick people well.
We do not need what medical men have unless we want to continue failing
as they have done thru the centuries. . . . Millions of people are sick.
Medical men manufacture business for us. As long as there is one medical
man in business, there is need for one Chiropractor to follow his footsteps
[1].

Although Palmer wanted equal rights in treating the sick, he was opposed
to legislative control of the chiropractic profession. The book from which
the quotation above was taken was, according to Palmer, A Declaration
Opposing Legislative Domination -- A Declaration for Chiropractic Professional
Independence. It seems that he preferred such circumstances as would permit
his followers to do as he taught them without the interference of law and
educational standards. The teachings of B.J. Palmer (and D.D. Palmer) continue
to be popular among chiropractors. Palmer gave them the faith and courage
to believe that they were qualified and competent physicians. Banded together,
persecution became strength and cause.

"We were prosecuted and persecuted," said Palmer, "but
that tested our sincerity and convictions, brot out stuff we were made of.
The principle was grand, great. The practice might have been crude, but
the percentage of sick people who got well was much higher than any other
profession. Graduates of those days were filled to overflowing with a super-abundance
of confidence in a highly essenced Innate knowledge, with a deep and sound
understanding of the righteousness of their cause. They went forth with
heads high, chests out, looking people eye-to-eye, and preached the gospel.
Their cup of Chiropractic was filled to over-flowing and running over."
[1]

Today, the Palmer School has an enrollment of only one-third of what
it was in "those days." Only 68 years old, younger than the life
span of its founder, the chiropractic profession itself, after a brief phenomenal
growth, has already begun to shrink in size -- even while still in its infancy.
Since it sometimes requires a considerable length of time for the development
of a profession -- or the death of a cult -- it seems entirely possible
(if the present trend in chiropractic continues) that the chiropractic profession
might deteriorate before it gets the time-consuming opportunity to make
the changes necessary for its survival. Although time may find chiropractors
licensed in every state as competitors of the medical physician (in the
treatment of disease), it seems logical to assume that no activity, separated
from the mainstream of science, could continue to offer spinal manipulation
as a superior treatment for disease while the progress of medical science
continues to present evidence to the contrary. Some of the most recent laws
regulating the practice of chiropractic (defining the practice as a method
of treating disease by hands only, i.e., spinal manipulation) will ultimately
seal the doom of the profession in states where such laws are in effect
-- unless, of course, the practice is properly limited in reciprocity with
medical practice. The mere suggestion of such a solution, however, presents
fighting words to chiropractors who consider their treatment methods to
be superior to those used by a medical physician.

The solution to the problem of a dying profession is, according to B.J.
Palmer, simply that of increasing the number of its practitioners. In appealing
to licensed chiropractors to send more students to the schools of the International
Chiropractic Association, two-thirds of whom usually end up in the Palmer
School, Palmer advised:

Send hundreds, yea thousands of students to ICA schools and colleges
where they will get ten-fingered, pure, unadulterated Chiropractic; become
wholesome, responsible, reliable Chiropractors who go forth, carry our
message into the world and get millions of sick people well. If each [chiroprac]tor
sent one student, what an army that would be. If each Chiropractor added
one new member to the ICA, think of the sinews of war that would make [it]
possible to save Chiropractic [2].

In Palmer's efforts to "save" chiropractic, it is interesting
to note that, in circular letters mailed to chiropractors in every state,
attention is brought to the fact that the chiropractic profession is "growing
weaker every day in numbers, economically and politically." The letters
advised that the only solution to the problem would be found in getting
more students for the chiropractic schools. Copies of advertising mats,
describing the "Palmer School of Chiropractic, Davenport, Iowa ...
the Chiropractic Fountain Head -- where Chiropractic was discovered and
developed," were enclosed with the suggestion that they be run in the
local newspapers in order to "attract students for chiropractic"
and to "keep your name before the public constantly." No mention
was made of the other schools approved by the International Chiropractic
Association.

B.J. Palmer, in commenting on the rival N.C.A. group's attempt to elevate
the standards of the chiropractic profession and make the changes they feel
are necessary for the survival of that profession, stated that:

The NCA wants our profession to be looked up to, respected, so our people
can take a social standing in society, going the way osteopathy has gone.
They want legal respectability. They ask legislators for licenses. They
got them. For 30 years, when we were growing, the only respect we wanted,
needed, was support and respectability we gained from the public who had
been sick, tried everything in medicine, went to a Chiropractor, took adjustments,
and got well. What more did we need then, and what more do we have a right
to have now? Today we are on the legislative greased toboggan, down-grade,
because we couldn't be satisfied with public support by doing the one thing
medical men could not do -- get sick people well [1].

How Palmer proposed to maintain the existence of chiropractic without
legislation and legal licensure, I do not know. He apparently did realize,
however, that progressive legislation, depending much upon the guide of
contemporary science, will not continue to tolerate the fundamental philosophy
of chiropractic; and it is this fundamental philosophy that supports the
chiropractic profession as a group independent of all other healing arts.

Those who are members of the National Chiropractic Association will say
that the opinions of B.J. Palmer and the I.C.A. do not represent their own
opinions. It seems, however, that the difference between the two groups,
when it comes to competing with the medical physician in the treatment of
disease, is only one of degree. The Palmer School teaches chiropractic,
in philosophy, as it was propounded in the beginning (as still taught in
the majority of chiropractic schools today), holding on to the originality
that permitted of those approved by the National Association, have simply
added other measures to the practice.

The National Chiropractic Association says of the International Chiropractic
Association:

The ICA . . . is dictatorially controlled by its perennial private school
president. The Board always bows to his wishes and desires. He simply dictates
policy and calls all the shots, so to speak, and there have been plenty
of them, through the years, as you all well know -- witness the Steele
case in California, the Boston case in Iowa, and currently the Grayson
case in Wisconsin. The ICA has only about 1,600 to 1,800 bonafide members
and a small cash reserve. Further, while they have a number of outstanding
chiropractors as members, it is unfortunately true that they also have
in their membership many unlicensed chiropractors who would be ineligible
for membership in the NCA-NCIC [National Chiropractic Insurance Company]
because of lack of qualifications -- they would be, indeed, poor and hazardous
risks from an insurance standpoint because of their cultist attitude and
insistence on the use of specific adjusting technique and nothing else
in the care of the patient, regardless of the illness involved [3].

The N.C.A. further contends that the I.C.A. is engaged in an attempt
to bring the entire chiropractic profession back to "straight chiropractic"
(as Palmer puts it, anything else is medicine, "whether you like it
or not").

It is interesting to note that, while the N.C.A. advocates "mixed"
chiropractic (including the use of physiotherapy) , only three of the eight
N.C.A. approved schools include the instruction of physiotherapy in their
regular course of studies. Likewise, while the I.C.A. fights for strictly
"straight" chiropractic, two or three of the I.C.A. approved schools
include physiotherapy courses in their curriculum! Thus, when the National
Chiropractic Association refers to the "cultist attitude" of the
International Chiropractic Association (for using a single treatment, "regardless
of the illness involved"), and when the I.C.A. refers to the "stealing
of medical methods by the NCA," the accusations each group levels at
the other seem to pretty well sum up the situation: one group "persisting
in a cultist attitude" in order to hold ground gained, and the other
group "plagiarizing medical methods" in order to insure its future
on new grounds.

Although fewer than half of the N.C.A. schools actually teach physiotherapy
in their regular curriculum (with fewer I.C.A. schools teaching the subject),
the N.C.A. often maintains that 86 percent of licensed chiropractors practice
"rational chiropractic," which includes the use of other measures
in addition to the spinal adjustment [3]. Yet, according to testimony by
the Director of Education of the National Chiropractic Association, before
a Senate Committee in Missouri in 1959, only 22 states allow the chiropractor
to use conservative physiotherapy, "by one means or another, out of
forty-eight jurisdictions." Apparently, many chiropractors, not trained
to do so, are employing physiotherapeutic methods in only a few states.
Since the Palmer School professes to have graduated more than half of all
the chiropractors in the field today, we have to assume that large numbers
of Palmer graduates, instructed against the use of physiotherapy, are actually
employing such methods.

Since I quoted, earlier, from published material of the National Chiropractic
Association, concerning the size and the "cultist" attitude of
the International Chiropractic Association, I present, from the other side,
defensive statements from the writings of B.J. Palmer of the International
Chiropractic Association:

The NCA, from time to time or place to place, claims a membership of
8,000. We have their membership list and it is liberally about 4,000. It
has been stated that about 50 per cent of this is, or was, in California.
Within the past few months, the California Chiropractic Association has
seceded from that affiliation. This would reduce 4, 000 to 2,000. It is
reported that that list contains names of men and women retired, and some
dead and buried -- how many is questionable. It has been told by California
Chiropractors that this loss has withdrawn about 28 percent of their income.
It is believed that there are about 5,000 real and false Chiropractors
in California, yet when the NCA held their National Convention in Los Angeles,
reports we received were that they had about 200 at their meetings. . .
. The ICA prints a directory and it is not padded. It lists over 2,000
and has had a substantial and healthy growth each year since its birth
[1].

Under the NCA statements now made, it is obvious they designedly, intentionally,
and maliciously desire to reverse the chiropractic "one cause -- one
cure" for the outside medical 18,000 causes and 18,000 outside cures;
go from the chiropractic "one cause -- one cure" to 18,000 medical
"causes," 18,000 "cures"; tried, tested, proved failures
one by one, year by year, ad infinitum, ad nauseum; none for which medical
men or the NCA seek have they yet found. What fools NCA mortals be! [4]

In considering Palmer's preference for "one cause -- one cure"
(over medical science's "18,000 causes and cures"), it is interesting
to note that the National Chiropractic Association, in trying to establish
the definition of chiropractic to include other treatment methods, has,
on occasion, distributed literature to the effect that, if chiropractic
is to survive, the "one cause -- one cure" concept, such as that
promoted by the Palmer School and the International Chiropractic Association,
"must go." This resulted in a "back to chiropractic"
crusade by Palmer, which, as a result, began a progressive promotion of
'.straight chiropractic" laws and policies in a good many states. A
few states, influenced by Palmer, terminated their Class A affiliation with
the National Chiropractic Association. Literature distributed by the International
Chiropractic Association, portraying the fate of homeopathy and osteopathy
("absorbed by medicine") after these groups began to employ medical
treatment methods, seems to have been quite effective in convincing many
chiropractors that the safest and most workable course for a chiropractor
to follow would be in close adherence to straight chiropractic as formulated
by its founder. To go along with the N.C.A. plan of adding other treatment
methods, Palmer argued, would be to start down the same road taken by homeopathy,
naturopathy, and osteopathy.

The fact that the greatest majority of chiropractors have had no training
in treatment methods other than pure chiropractic may have had a great deal
to do with the success of Palmer's drive. There is no doubt that a feeling
of inadequacy and insecurity would invade the small world of a straight
chiropractic practitioner if a necessity for additional treatment methods
were demonstrated -- by chiropractors -- to that portion of the public patronizing
the chiropractic "physician." It would, of course, probably be
quite difficult to convince a practitioner (chiropractic) that he needed
to employ measures he had not been trained and instructed to use -- especially
if his livelihood had been founded and developed on procedures and doctrines
excluding the use of such measures. Furthermore, the tendency to add additional
treatment methods, under the chiropractic theory, would throw the door open
for progressive addition of such methods -- as in the case of the osteopath,
thus creating a method of practice much too complicated in the viewpoint
of large numbers of chiropractors who are presently using a single and simple
treatment method.

Right or wrong, any expansion of the chiropractor's treatment method
would probably have to begin almost entirely in the classroom. Ironically
enough, considering the arguments of the N.C.A. and the I.C.A., the solutions
offered for survival of chiropractic are not even exercised in all of the
approved chiropractic schools. The paradox displayed in the schools and
policies of these two opposing organizations is probably quite typical of
the problems besetting the profession. One workable solution to the chiropractors'
problems might be found in the amalgamation of several chiropractic schools
to form one large school. Considering the diversity of methods and policies
taught in chiropractic schools, however, it does not seem likely that a
"teaming-up" would be possible.

In referring to the withdrawal of the California Association from the
National Association, it is interesting to note, considering the usual arguments
between "straight" and "mixed" chiropractors, that,
according to testimony given by Dr. J.J. Nugent, Director of Education of
the National Chiropractic Association, before the Senate Committee on Public
Health and Welfare in Jefferson City, Missouri, February, 1959, about 1200
chiropractors terminated their membership with the N.C.A. (independent of
the efforts of the I.C.A. to limit the treatment methods of chiropractic,
and the efforts of the N.C.A. to broaden them). We take the following quotation
from the Fountain Head News, May 1, 1959, as stated, in part, by Dr. Nugent:

We have a group in California . . . but California is a land of many
freakish things. We have freakish medical doctors, we have freakish lawyers,
we have freakish chiropractors and we have a group out there who want to
practice medicine . . . and, Sir, rather than agree with them we let 1200
members go in California from the National Chiropractic Association.

In noting the withdrawal of the California Association from the National
Association (which advocates "mixed" chiropractic), because of
"a group out there who want to practice medicine," it is interesting
to recall that the attempts of the N.C.A. to include the use of physiotherapy,
minor surgery, and other such medical procedures in the practice of chiropractic
is an attempt to change chiropractic from what it basically is (as promoted
by the I.C.A.). Thus, we have three groups of chiropractors: those who practice
pure chiropractic; those who practice a modified form of chiropractic; and
those who literally want to practice medicine! Considering the theory of
chiropractic, however, it seems that the inclusion of any form of treatment,
in addition to the spinal adjustment, is the inclusion of the practice of
medicine.

Probably, in the three groups mentioned above, we find stages of chiropractic
evolution leading either to change or extinction. The proposed need for
any change in the manner of practice now followed by the majority of chiropractors
might possibly be considered to be an indication of the ineffectiveness
of the chiropractic adjustment. Certainly the inclusion of other forms of
therapy in the chiropractor's practice would seem to invalidate a theory
that contends that "95 percent of diseases are caused by displaced
vertebrae; the remainder by luxations of other joints." In any event,
the stand of the California chiropractors "who want to practice medicine"
is, perhaps, one of the first positive indications of the possibility of
the development of a Class C medical practice.

B.J. Palmer, in noting the efforts of the National Chiropractic Association
to make a change in the practice of chiropractic, stated:

The NCA is fully cognizant of what they do. They know they are destroying
everything Chiropractic except its name. They laud D.D. Palmer on Chiropractic
Day and destroy everything he believed, practiced, and fought for, the
other 364 days in the year, year after year.

The ICA, by contrast, is an organization composed of Chiropractors,
whose programs, speakers, legislative and legal intentions are to preserve,
protect, defend and make possible everything pro-chiropractic and nothing
pro-medical [1].

In order to widen the scope of therapeutic measures used by the chiropractor,
the National Chiropractic Association adopted a "rational definition
and scope of accepted practice which will enable all doctors of chiropractic
to work, side by side, for the sound advancement of their profession."
This definition stated: "Chiropractic is a science of healing based
on the premise that disease often is caused by the abnormal functioning
of the human nervous system."

In observing changes in the N.C.A. definition of chiropractic (over a
period of many years), it is interesting to note that the original definition
-- that disease is the result of misaligned vertebrae -- has been changed
to say that disease is "often" caused by "abnormal functioning
of the nervous system" (with no mention made of vertebral misalignment),
and further changed to say that "Chiropractic is a branch of the healing
arts devoted to the promotion of the public health and welfare" (with
no mention of nervous interference or vertebral misalignment).

In the pamphlet "Industry and Chiropractic," prepared by the
National Chiropractic Association, the definition of chiropractic given
states that disease is "often" caused by abnormal functioning
of the nervous system, yet the pamphlet goes on say:

The field of chiropractic is broad and applicable to a wide variety of
diseases and ailments -- almost any type of disorder your workers may acquire.
Chiropractic's underlying theory is that the nervous system controls all
other systems and all physiological functions of the body -- that interference
with this control impairs the various functions and induces disease [5].

Thus, it seems that the word "often" in the definition of chiropractic
has little meaning. Furthermore, reference in chiropractic definitions to
the "use of all diagnostic procedures recognized by the various schools
of the healing arts" does not mean that chiropractors, working entirely
within the confines of their offices, routinely employ all the diagnostic
measures commonly used in medical hospitals and laboratories. Countless
diagnostic procedures, such as biopsy, surgical exploration, electroencephalography,
myelography (injection of dye into the spinal canal or subarachnoid space
for visualization of the spinal canal), visualization of internal organs
and the circulatory system with dyes, spinal tap, gastric analysis, bacterial
cultures, and so on, could not possibly be used by a chiropractor who is
forbidden to take blood from the arm, admit a patient to a hospital, or
refer a patient to a clinical laboratory for examination. Even if chiropractors
were in a position to employ "all the diagnostic procedures recognized
by the various schools of the healing arts" (which they have not been
trained to use), it would, of course, be quite impossible for them to select
which "diagnosed" diseases were "often" caused by nerve
interference at the spinal column and which ones were not, if the chiropractic
theory is used as a guide.

In any event, diagnosis of a disease is one thing, but the cause and
proper treatment of that disease is another. If the definition of chiropractic
were altered from the contention that "all" disease is caused
by nerve interference at the skeletal joints, to the conjecture that disease
is "often" caused by such interference (in order to permit the
use of other therapeutic measures), there is no method or reason, in the
chiropractic theory, for eliminating a disease process that is not caused
by such means, any more than there is a reason for believing that most disease
is caused by misaligned vertebrae. Regardless, the chiropractor, as a "drugless
healer," is extremely limited in his methods of diagnosis and treatment,
yet he is still allowed to treat a "wide variety of diseases and ailments."
Even if all methods of diagnosis were available to the chiropractor, he
would be compelled to continue the use of spinal manipulation, as a primary
treatment for disease, according to the theory of chiropractic-in spite
of the fact that the sole purpose of diagnosis, in the medical sense, lies
in the detection of the nature and the cause of the disease so that treatment
may be selected accordingly. Diet, psychotherapy, and physiotherapy are
actually auxiliary methods of treatment-though valuable they are-that are
common to all accredited healing arts (even nursing), and are not often
of primary value in the treatment of most serious illnesses as they occur
today.

Regardless of what the N.C.A. or the I.C.A. has to say about it, there
are a great many chiropractors who believe 100% in the chiropractic creed.
They want to keep chiropractic as it was developed by its founder. This
type of chiropractic was simple, uncomplicated, and without any relation
to methods and subjects of medical practice, As such, it was in direct competition
with medical practice; its difference justified its existence. This was
the type of chiropractic that attracted so many students in the earlier
days. It required little time to learn, for it did not depend upon medical
methods of diagnosis and treatment. In order to prevent any change in chiropractic,
chiropractors, under the direction of the Palmer School, organized in order
to spread the gospel of "old fashion chiropractic" -- "all
chiropractic and no medical." Many practitioners adopted the policies
of "straight" chiropractic. B.J. Palmer encouraged them:

Chiropractors got sick people well when all boasted exaggerated gigantic
medical educations of basic sciences failed. Chiropractors, so-called "ignorant"
people with "ignorant fantasies," were getting millions of sick
people well, when all bragging medical education failed . . . their single
simple vertebral adjustment accomplished more than all the vast aggregation
of immense armamentarium of medicine. . . . I would rather be ignorant
of everything taught in basic sciences and be able to give a simple single
vertebral chiropractic principle and practice adjustment and get sick people
well, than to know all basic sciences, pass their examinations, and then
fail to find one single cause for one single disease, as medical men are
aware [6].

B.J. Palmer was the son of D.D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic.
Large numbers of chiropractors listened to him, for he undoubtedly knew
more about chiropractic -- what it really was -- than any living individual.
He wanted to do away with extensive basic science studies, two-year pre-college
requirements, and legislative control over chiropractic boards and chiropractic
licensure. He wanted chiropractic limited to "straight" chiropractic
in every state.

Chiropractors replied in agreement (1959):

We do not attempt to diagnose. We do check the patient with the Neurocalometer
and Neurocalograph equipment for the determination of pressure-interference
of the nervous system. If interference exists, we then take spinographs
to find that part of the subluxation. . . . We have been doing this for
10-1/2 years, with 7,605 Patients. They have ranged in age from a baby
10 days old, to a 92 year old man.... Under this thinking, and the described
technique, we have had to refuse care to 19 people. They had nervous system
interference too, but spinographs showed bone conditions beyond safe limit
of adjusting. No one has been refused, except two inebriated brothers [6].

Another said:

Any Medical man would shudder in absolute fear, if he were to make a
house call with me to a raging fever case; see me check the patient with
a Neurocalometer; adjust a vertebra; and after re-checking leave the case
to its own care. All this without ascertaining what dis-ease it was that
"caused" the fever. Yet the success of such practice has been
satisfying to me, as a Chiropractor, for eleven years. . . . In every practice
there is a failure percentage, as well as a success percentage. No amount
of diagnosis before-hand will prevent this. Stiff necks may fail to respond
at times, as well as more serious cases. Medically diagnosed, "Terminal
Hodgkins," (with University confirmation), recovered in spite of all
opinion to the contrary. . . . It is our responsibility, as chiropractors,
to apply Chiropractic with utmost skill. The outcome is governed by several
factors, such as: Ability to properly adjust; amount of damage attained
before hand; the patient's co-operation, etc. Beyond these factors only
Jesus could be a more confident Doctor; could be more certain of His results
[6].

In considering the horrifying implications found in the quotations above,
I hope the reader can correctly label such contentions on the basis of his
own judgment.

In his efforts to take control of the chiropractic profession, B.J. Palmer
published several proclamations defining the practice of chiropractic. The
quotations just given were taken from one of them called Shall Chiropractic
Survive?; in them is contained the evidence that chiropractic -- in
some quarters -- is still the "panacea." Large numbers of chiropractors
are still treating "raging fevers" without even making a diagnosis;
and many chiropractic schools are still teaching "straight" chiropractic
in supporting such efforts.

The philosophy of the Palmer School is still largely supported among
practitioners in the field, for, in one of its publications, we note that
"over 6700 chiropractors" (the publication stated that there were
15,000 chiropractors in America) gathered at a 1959 Palmer "Lyceum"
in order to "find ways to preserve chiropractic" [7]. And the
fight between the N.C.A. and the I.C.A. goes on.